I do not agree with the requirements of policy BEX9 for the following reasons:

* Highway access through Spindlewood Drive is not appropriate. Any access to the proposed development should be directly on to the A259 and not through Spindlewood Drive and Meads Road.

* Meads Road is used for parking by residents and people who work in Little Common. As a result it is essentially a single track road unsuited to heavy traffic use and especially not to use by heavy construction vehicles. The type of construction of the road also does not look strong enough to withstand this type of use.

* The junction of Meads Road with Cooden Sea Road is already frequently congested by the parking of delivery vans, traffic in and out of the Tesco express carpark and the volume of traffic feeding onto the roundabout. Further increase in traffic use from construction traffic and then from extra housing off Spindlewood Drive (resident use and delivery vans would be in excess of 800 movements a day) would make this junction difficult and dangerous.

* There would most likely also be an increase in traffic use of Maple Walk. For much of its length this is a single track road with passing places and no pavement. Increased traffic use would present a hazard in what is essentially a quiet country lane. It is also an unadopted road where residents pay for its upkeep and extra use would involve them in greater costs. This seems unreasonable when extra use will come from non-residents of the road.

* The fields off Spindlewood are adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas. The environmental report produced for the potential developer of the site has large sections redacted. An independent report carried out by the council with all relevant information provided seems necessary before a valid decision can be made about the protections required on this site.

* The fields in this area are prone to flooding. Inevitably, any substantial building development in the area would have an impact on the water table and drainage. SuDs drainage has been incorporated in the proposal but a proper flood assessment would seem appropriate to assess the security of surrounding houses and the impact of further building adjacent to fields which are below sea level.

* The case for additional housing at the site is not sufficiently demonstrated. Other planned developments in Little Common (31 house cul de sac off Barnhorn Road, plans for 17 flats are three different locations in Little Common) have not been included in the figures given on this proposal. Northeye is a possible alternative site which is a brown field site and could provide over a hundred dwellings. In total this would exceed the number proposed for land off Spindlewood Drive. The land off Spindlewood Drive is a greenfield site. Brownfield sites are always to be preferred to greenfield sites for any development and yet this site is shown as preferred when a brownfield site is available at Northeye.

* This part of Little Common has retained a semi- rural aspect; any further development, particularly at such a high level of density which is totally out of keeping with the existing housing would change the nature of the area for ever with the consequent loss of any sense of distinctive character.

* The lack of sufficient infrastructure to support even more development over and above the Barnhorn Green site is also very concerning. There are no plans to provide additional school places or a doctors' surgery or any other additional facilities. Where will the children go to school? How will Little Common surgery cope with this massive increase in patient numbers? Where will the new residents be working? All of this suggests considerable pressure on local resources and yet more daily traffic on the already over used A259.